Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses - Nottinghamshire County Council
Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses - Nottinghamshire County Council Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses - Nottinghamshire County Council
example of this is the pumping station at West Burton Power Station which was inundated and resulted in worsened flooding in the North Leverton area. 78. Homeowners at risk have a personal responsibility to improve the resilience of their properties through the installation of self-closing airbricks and floodgates. The Select Committee hopes that all insurance companies have the good sense not to penalise homeowners for taking preventative action. 79. At present there seems to be an over-reliance on sandbags and unrealistic expectations of their effectiveness and a feeling that local authorities should deliver them to anyone who thinks that they might benefit from them. 80. The transportation of sandbags into areas that have flooded or are in the process of flooding is problematic. As a matter of commonsense, areas that are likely to benefit from provision of sandbags should have a local store – as near as possible to where they will be deployed. This would make residents aware of the finite provision and would circumvent the need to make logistical arrangements. It would be ironic indeed if the transportation of sandbags by heavy goods vehicles caused bow waves which worsened the flooding for some residents. 81. When flood warden schemes are being set up, existing community groups, such as Neighbourhood Watch, may prove a valuable source of volunteers and should perhaps be contacted in the first instance. 82. In the absence of a single over-arching authority responsible for all flooding issues, people likely to be affected by flooding have a right to know which services they can expect to receive from which agency or local authority. Responsibilities and contact details should be clearly presented in a leaflet or booklet to be made available to residents and businesses. 83. There is an obvious requirement for a central record of riparian ownership and responsibility. This Authority should ensure that where records exist they are collated and where they do not exist they are created following careful research. Ultimately, it might be useful if the final product of this mapping exercise is made available on-line (as Newark Internal Drainage Board’s maps are at present). Further, the identification of riparian owners would allow them to be reminded of their responsibilities in a targeted or prioritised way; especially those who may be obstructing the flow of water by serious neglect or unthinking and inappropriate development. 84. Some areas of England, such as Gloucestershire, suffered much more than Nottinghamshire during last summer’s floods. This would seem to beg the following questions: What if Nottinghamshire had been at the centre of the flooding event? What would have been the effect on the critical infrastructure of the county? The future may not bring a precise recurrence of the 2007 floods. It may bring other more extreme weather events. It is not hard to imagine, for example, a severe winter storm which floods the M1, or other major roads, stranding thousands of motorists; or a coastal storm surge causing catastrophic flooding in Lincolnshire which results in requests for assistance to this Authority. Weak points in the critical infrastructure which could affect Nottinghamshire – especially in terms of transport and utilities - are worth carefully identifying and it would be useful for the emergency planning team to ensure that they are aware of them and 16
develop appropriate responses. Weaknesses which fall outside the county’s geographical boundary but affect the county should also be considered. 85. Ensuring that the critical infrastructure is robustly defended is worthy of further scrutiny. It is perhaps an issue that Overview and Scrutiny could commission a topic select committee to look at, when the work programme allows. 86. The Select Committee welcomes interim conclusion 26 of Sir Michael Pitt’s report (page 54) which suggests that local authority scrutiny committees should review Surface Water Management Plans, and other linked plans, such as Local Development Frameworks and Community Risk Registers. An ongoing role for Scrutiny around flooding issues would be valuable. While this report was being finalised Sir Michael Pitt published his final report and recommendations. The recommendations are attached as Appendix B. 17
- Page 1: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses F
- Page 4 and 5: Members of the Select Committee Cou
- Page 6 and 7: 8. Further to this presentation, on
- Page 8 and 9: • Repair services disrupted by fl
- Page 10 and 11: 31. Gullies connect into highway dr
- Page 12 and 13: Leicestershire and Lincolnshire acr
- Page 14 and 15: • Sandbags only had limited effec
- Page 18 and 19: Recommendations Drainage 1 Highways
- Page 20 and 21: 17 The Overview and Scrutiny Commit
- Page 22 and 23: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses K
- Page 24 and 25: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses D
- Page 26 and 27: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses f
- Page 28 and 29: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses N
- Page 30 and 31: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses T
- Page 32 and 33: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses T
- Page 34 and 35: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses R
- Page 36 and 37: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses R
- Page 38 and 39: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses T
- Page 40 and 41: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses T
- Page 42 and 43: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses R
- Page 44 and 45: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses R
- Page 46 and 47: Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses T
develop appropriate responses. Weaknesses which fall outside the county’s<br />
geographical boundary but affect the county should also be considered.<br />
85. Ensuring that the critical infrastructure is robustly defended is worthy of<br />
further scrutiny. It is perhaps an issue that Overview and Scrutiny could<br />
commission a topic select committee to look at, when the work programme<br />
allows.<br />
86. The Select Committee welcomes interim conclusion 26 of Sir Michael Pitt’s<br />
report (page 54) which suggests that local authority scrutiny committees<br />
should review Surface Water Management Plans, and other linked plans,<br />
such as Local Development Frameworks and Community Risk Registers. An<br />
ongoing role for Scrutiny around flooding issues would be valuable. While<br />
this report was being finalised Sir Michael Pitt published his final report and<br />
recommendations. The recommendations are attached as Appendix B.<br />
17
Change language